I think many have seen this last page, very few have seen the earlier pages of his final report. His analysis is pages and pages and pages long, comparing many words, letter combinations. But I think it is interesting to see how he used the report to cite one part of the analysis, the details of his comparisons of a single word. I hope you agree it makes for good insight into the science of handwriting analysis.

Handwriting analysis is more accurately described as a pseudoscience, not a true science (in and of itself). As Riles himself stated, "While the identification of handwriting has a scientific basis, ultimately the evaluation is subjective." What is and is not science is part of the philosophy of science, and there is a lot of disagreement about exactly what constitutes science, but I am quite certain that very few if any philosophers of science would claim that handwriting analysis itself is a science. It would be better to say "I hope you agree it makes for good insight into handwriting analysis," leaving out the word "science." People need to understand that handwriting analysis itself is no more true science than a court trial is.